"Nothing short of an aroused public can change things; nothing less than democracy is at stake." - Bill Moyers

December 10, 2007

Our Tax Dollars at Work

Sorry I'm getting this up so late. In fact, I have a confession-- this was sitting in my hopper awaiting just such a day as this has been [having no time to research something new.]The fact is, friends from KC are down for a 2-day 'Hi, how-ya-doin,' blow-kisses dash. I'll be off-line tomorrow, as well. So--here's something anyway. . . .^^^Dogs can now be allowed to accompany their owners out to dinner.

In June, 2006, Florida's Governor Jeb Bush signed a 'dining with dogs' bill. The legislation gave local governments the OK to let restaurants permit dogs to eat with their owners in outdoor dining areas [something that had been occurring informally for a long time, anyway].

The measure created a three-year pilot program after which time the state would revisit the issue to determine whether it was a good idea.

Allowing dogs to dine will be up to the local city or county, and then even if local restrictions were waived to allow it, it would still be up to the restaurant owner as to whether to participate.*_*_*Of course, I have nothing against dogs eating with their people. We’ve been sharing our meals with them at home for millenia with no discernible adverse effects. And, if people are squeamish, they can always move to a dog-free zone.My concern is this: what MIGHT Jeb have been doing rather than assigning the research into such a bill to a subordinate? What might that subordinate have been doing other than handling this meaningless gesture?I’ve got a few suggestions:How about spending some time and money on Florida’s education system?Or looking into environmental concerns?Or making sure the voter registration system is truly fair and equal?Or hurricane preparedness?The list just goes on and on. . . .

9 comments:

I know, this kind of stuff does seem ridiculous. They would rather spend time on stuff that is entertaining than stuff that is important. In Washington DC they would rather argue about whether or not to defund public broadcasting than whether or not to do something about poverty.

As our society gets more and more numbed and dumbed down by television, the issues judged important by our legislators will get dumbed down as well.

hi snave--you make a great point. since PBS serves as an educational tool for preschoolers whose parents are either unable or unwilling to attend to it themselves, the fact that that issue is even up for debate is absurd. if our country truly wanted to educate ALL our children, PBS wouldn't be resorting to commercials these days. it would have all the funding it needs not only to sustain its current programing but to increase it.instead, we get bills like this one.down here, MOST restaurants have outdoor facilities [why not? it's 10 days before the winter solstice and today is supposed to get into the mid- to upper-80's :) ] and dogs have been quietly present in such establishments for years. so long as they are mannerly, where's the harm?and there's been no need for legislation to make it happen.

I agree with all of you, can you think of anything that was more of a waste of time than this? Like you said, so much more needs to be done. There are homeless who need shelters, there are seniors who can't afford their medicine, etc.

Regarding dogs in restaurant areas...I'm not a big fan for only the same reason as let's talk. I LOVE dogs..in fact, I love all animals. But, what happens when one of those dogs start a fight with the dog at the next table? Or, what if a child goes to give a bite of food to a dog at the next table and the dog gets so excited that it bites the child while grabbing the food?Or, what if a dog decides to take a dump or hikes his leg on the table? Ewwww!

I may be seeing problems that don't exist, after all, in France they've been doing this for a long time.

hey, ME--yep, it's been happening here a long time, too. people have just winked and nodded and moved on -- unless someone complained to the manager. that's at least part of the point. why pass legislation for something that's already happening?